On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 08:31:09PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 06:51:06PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 12:01:22AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 11:05:43AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 01:21:54AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > most: (110) .. xmms-msa xplanet xprint-xprintorg xwelltris/arm xwelltris/mips zope zsh-beta ztutils aolserver-nscache/arm aolserver-nsencrypt/arm apmd auto-apt bbappconf bbpager bincimap blender blt boost brltty cfitsio
> > > > > ...along with some 109 other packages, which are listed.
> > > > Well, i am not sure that all of these 109 packages are listed,
> > >
> > > No, because listing them each time would be irritating. Once there are
> > > more than 20 or so, it only lists the most recent 20, and includes a
> > > ".." to indicate there are more.
> >
> > Well, fine with me, but then how in hell can you check what is really
> > going on, and find what package(s) is(are) holding a given package to
> > enter testing and can focus your effort on solving said problem.
>
> Uh? The 110 packages Anthony mentions are the packages *which have just
> been accepted into testing*, not ones that are blocking anything. You
> can find them all by grepping for "accepted:".
Ok, sorry, i did misunderstand. Still, when i was investigating the
ocaml situation, update_output told me there where 35 or so package that
caused problems but around 30 or so only where listed :
2003/03/12 :
skipped: ocaml (1221+11)
got: 35+0: a-35
* alpha: libcamlimages-ocaml, libcamlimages-ocaml-dev,
* libconfigwin-ocaml-dev, libgdome2-ocaml, libgdome2-ocaml-dev,
* libgdome2-xslt-ocaml, libgdome2-xslt-ocaml-dev,
* liblablgl-ocaml,
* liblablgl-ocaml-dev, liblablgtk-ocaml, liblablgtk-ocaml-dev,
* liblablgtkmathview-ocaml, liblablgtkmathview-ocaml-dev,
* libmlgtk-ocaml, libmlgtk-ocaml-dev, libnetclient-ocaml-dev,
* libocamlnet-ocaml-dev, libpcre-ocaml, libpcre-ocaml-dev,
* libpgsql-ocaml-dev, libpxp-ocaml-dev, libsdl-ocaml,
* libsdl-ocaml-dev, libshell-ocaml, libshell-ocaml-dev,
* libxstr-ocaml-dev, libzip-ocaml, libzip-ocaml-dev, ocamltk,
* zoggy
This is 5 missing packages, at first i thought these where the binary
package of the ocaml source package, but there are only 4 of them.
> Relax.
No problem, as you know, my urgency in this matter is no more, but still
it would be nice to have a bit more transparency in this, be it only a
better explanation in the FAQ, but i really would like an automated way
to list all the problems for a given package. I think many others than
me would find this usefull too.
> > Yes, i understand, that solves the 2), appart from the fact that it is
> > mayhap not complete, and it is not easy to parse automatically. What
> > about 1) ? Packages not in testing, but which cannot be installed in
> > testing because they are not valid candidates ?
>
> If they aren't valid candidates then update_excuses.html will show you
> this.
Ok.
> > What can you say me about :
> >
> > trying: hardware-monitor
> > skipped: hardware-monitor (982+40)
> > got: 23+0: a-4:a-5:h-6:i-8
> > * i386: hardware-monitor
>
> If you add it to testing it won't be installable, so there's no point
> doing so. (However, it's counted as a valid candidate anyway, because it
> might happen that all the packages it depends on get accepted, and then
> you don't want to have to wait another day for it to become a valid
> candidate.)
>
> These Depends: lines ...
>
> > * Depends: hardware-monitor libbonobomm1.3
> > * Depends: hardware-monitor libbonoboui
> > * Depends: hardware-monitor libbonobouimm1.3
> > * Depends: hardware-monitor gconf2
> > * Depends: hardware-monitor gconfmm2.0
> > * Depends: hardware-monitor libglademm2.0
> > * Depends: hardware-monitor libgnome
> > * Depends: hardware-monitor libgnomecanvas
> > * Depends: hardware-monitor libgnomecanvasmm2.0
> > * Depends: hardware-monitor libgnomemm1.3
> > * Depends: hardware-monitor libgnomeui
> > * Depends: hardware-monitor libgnomeuimm1.3
> > * Depends: hardware-monitor gnome-vfs2
> > * Depends: hardware-monitor gtk+2.0
> > * Depends: hardware-monitor gtkmm2.0
> > * Depends: hardware-monitor gnome-panel
>
> ... tell you what you should be looking at to figure out why.
Ok. Altough it would be really nice to get a recursive lookup and list
exactly the problematic packages with their repective problems.
Eventually multiple iterations of this, since there may be multiple
group of packages to be considered.
Friendly,
Sven Luther